Post navigation

I’ve been working with several different configurations of hexagons…or shapes that utilize the geometry of hexagons. My first iteration was inspired the square block wall at Saint Johns Abbey. This tile varies in the placement of its apperture, based on an attractor point.

After some exparimentation, I had a problem with the code. When I tried to propegate it out past three tiles wide, the ginal form loses its coherency. Oddly enough, the equivalent Z Variable does not cause this problem and behaves the way I would expect.

I decided to try another tile form, that still utilized the geometry of a hexagon, but that I could vary in a more predictable way. This time in the degree of arc between the hexagons.

I’ve been working away at diagramming our molding process. The first image represents the molds of our “Strongback” Hub Tile.

This image represents the molds of our pinwheel tile, which creates our variations through rotating by specific ammounts (30°, 60°, and 90°)

In our final presentation, these will go alongside a few other diagrams that will display a few of our ideas for arrangements of these tiles. We can’t build them all, but we can certainly show many of the possibilities.

Here are some more renders/models of my hub tile. This time, I tried to reduce the mass of the piece to make it lighter. I also started playing around with some of the rotated tiles and seeing how they would mesh together 3-dimensionally. I want to be able to design two patterns that overlap predictably. My working hypothesis was that these pieces would accomplish this.

I found that the easiest way to make these tiles meet up on the other side is to have them rotate 60 degrees, if at all. In this way, the geometry seems to match up.

I realized that these tiles don’t fit together as easily as I’d thought they would. I tried to make the layers more than two-deep. As you will see this created a complex shape that was difficult to capture and display to my satisfaction. Also, the idea of overlapping patterns seems to get lost when the assemblies are taken to this length.

This next arrangement I worried less about how the structure of the assembly would function and instead just built out into space. I was determined to make these overlaid patterns work. I found that if I was careful and consistent, they could be coaxed to meet up more like I was hoping. This “snowflake” has 3 layers of complexity to it.

In the end, I really do enjoy the options available through the use of this tile; that being said, my group has elected to pursue one of several other designs involving a 3 sided hub. Many of the earlier designs can also actually be accomplished with only these types of hubs.

This is my original mold, I then draped it in a plastic bag. Results were square and massive. Also the pattern didn’t read as well as I’d hoped. Ultimately, I’d like to be able to produce a tile that assembles to display an image spread out across several tiles. I could try and divide a picture up into a grid and imitate it by carving foam…..

A variation involving a slanted bottom. This is a test to see if this is a fesable option for repeated variations.

My previous design had a lot of curved lines that read exclusively in 2 dimensions, while other curves read only in terms of depth. In the final version, I tried to make it read in both of these ways. Furthermore, there were a lot of visual “dead zones” in the composition, whic I filled in with the overlapping circular pattern on the triangular part of the pattern. All of these thing lead to the creation of the following tiles:

These tiles have variable wing sizes, this can be adjusted easily through grasshopper manipulation.

These tiles act as the hub piece that joins everything together. They vary in the amount of “swirl” that is featured in their centers.

The Following are several pictures of the final triangular arrangement of pieces. The variation reads across the composition from the top “corner” out the the bottom corners.